I think you’re expressing two key ideas about the “music becomes portable files” moment.

First, that the primary value of those beautiful 12-inch PVC discs, the dust-attracting cassettes, and the apt-to-be-kicked-across-the-floor CDs lies in the data that are written on them. (I wont talk about MD because I think it’s a bunk format.) More concisely, music is just information. That insight was merely interesting until consumer electronics caught up with its implied throughput, storage, and computing requirements. Now those requirements are trivial, and we’re enjoying the benefits of the original insight as implemented by technology. And that prompts us to search for new ways of relating to that data, and more specifically in this case to its preservation.

The second idea is more interesting to me: “Metadata” is important. Liner notes and album art and so on were never necessary components of mass-market music media, i.e. phonograph records, prerecorded tapes, and compact discs. A lot of releases lacked anything more than the most basic metadata, like copyright notices and product numbers. But for certain parts of the music-media-buying public (how’s that for generic?), metadata added value to the physical product. Some of us think it’s fun to learn who played what on which track.

Now that there’s no physical medium associated with the data representing the recording itself, music buyers and sellers are trying to find suitable ways of presenting metadata. Certainly there’s a lot online; fans are generating more metadata then ever, and I think that’s pretty cool. But online sites don’t travel well. As you point out, decent metadata require a fair amount of storage space, as well. I honestly don’t know which of two forces will provide solution:

Moore’s law and the associated trend towards larger storage capacities

or

Ubiquitous wireless connectivity

Sure as shootin’ one of them will, though.

Comment by Rick — Mon, 060724 @ 025259UTC